Congress Expands FBI Spying Power

Wired Magazine ^ | Nov. 24, 2003 | Ryan Singel

[cowtowney]

Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.

A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.

[cowtowney]

More reason to question why John Ashcroft gets to keep his job

[chance33_98]

Can Bush veto it?

[chance33_98]

Understand and agree, just pointing out I don't trust politicians a whole lot, no matter who they are :) Ashcroft gets attacked a lot, an easy target for most. I would though like to see him at least weigh in on this. Will see what I can dig up, he may have already.

[ellery]

It's not Ashcroft's fault -- Congress is to blame. "...and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts."

Great, because, you know, up 'til now the courts have been too weak compared to legislatures. Stupid legislative activism.... /sarcasm

[chance33_98]

More reason to question why John Ashcroft gets to keep his job

I don't see anyone calling for the heads of those who voted it. Hopefully it will be shot down before it's all said and done. Does the article list the names of the people who voted yes? I might have missed it...

[oceanview]

I can understand the point made by folks who come on these threads and vent against these things.

but they never talk about the flip side: who do you want to trust with these powers? the judiciary? do you realize who sits on the bench in this country, at all levels across all courts? are you seriously saying that we should entrust them with issuing court orders for these types of things?

our system was not designed to work with the type of people we have on the bench now.

[chance33_98]

but they never talk about the flip side: who do you want to trust with these powers?

I wouldn't have wanted a clinton administration to have them, and I don't want any other one to. You might trust the current crop in power, but they won't be there forever.

[oceanview]

I understand.

we are running out of people we can entrust with the security of this country. The strong majority of the Democratic party, the media, a good portion of the judiciary, activists groups like the ACLU, major elements of the embedded state department, and on it goes. what do you do?

[mrsmith]

Section 374 is similar to both Section 354 of the Senate amendment and to Section 334 of the House bill. Section 374 of the Conference Report expands the definition of ``financial institution'' for purposes of section-1 114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414 (RFPA). It provides enhanced authority for authorized Intelligence Community collection activities designed to prevent, deter, and disrupt terrorism and espionage directed against the U.S. and to enhance foreign intelligence efforts.

The Conferees believe this new definition is necessary for effective counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism operations of the United States. Section 1114 currently permits U.S. Government authorities engaged in counterintelligence or foreign intelligence activities to use ``National Security Letters,'' approved by a senior government official, to obtain certain financial records from defined ``financial institutions.'' The definition of ``financial institution'' in the RFPA has been essentially unmodified since the RFPA became law in 1978. This amendment updates the definition to include those entities that today provide financial services to individuals, but would not be covered by the current definition. Financial records maintained by these entities are not currently covered by the RFPA and, thus, are not accessible by intelligence elements of the United States Government using this authority. In order to expand the definition of ``financial institution'' for purposes only of section 1114, this subsection adopts, in part, the definition of ``financial institution'' found in section 5312 (a) (2) of Title 31, United States Code. It is important to highlight that this definition also is consistent with the definition used in section 804(5) of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 (50 U.S.C. 438).

The Conferees intend that this authority be used for accessing records and information from financial institutions for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and international terrorism investigations. The Conferees note, with approval, the significant actions of the U.S. Government in tracking terrorist finances. The Conferees believe that the authority granted by this section will enhance the Government's efforts in this regard. This provision allows the U.S. Government to have, through use of ``National Security Letters,'' greater access to a larger universe of information that goes beyond traditional financial records, but is nonetheless crucial in tracking terrorist finances or espionage activities. The Conferees understand that this authority should be used for accessing records and information for the purposes of identifying an individual's financial relationship with the specified financial institutions.

[Pontiac]

Right, 264 representatives do what the Constitution gives only THEM the right to do

Actually, if the article is correct about what this bill does, the Congress does not have the right to write a bill that limits the extent of Forth Amendment Protections and gives the Executive Branch the power to search through personal papers with out providing probable to a judge to obtain a warrant.

[chance33_98]

we are running out of people we can entrust with the security of this country.

Very well stated. As far as who do we trust - move more power to the states. Diverisfying the power base closer to home and over a larger group should help keep things in check. If a state X (like CA) does something like this and the rest of the nation isn't we can see the effects before others implement it, and it gives people more time to see what it does. The more the feds do and erase that diversity the easier it becomes for them to make changes in all 50 states at once.

I dunno, just some ramblings :)

[cowtowney]

"I don't see anyone calling for the heads of those who voted it. "

Good Point.

[o_zarkman44]

264 representitives and nobody can read? Why is all the criticism after the vote? Makes me wonder if anyone is actually present for votes in congress, who is advising the congresspersons on the fine points of the bill?
With thousands of words in a monotonous presentation, do the authors of these bills hope nobody reads them so they can slip things through?

This is very poor job performance by those elected to represent us. They obviously cannot read. Grade F!

[ellery]

who do you want to trust with these powers?

We cannot trust any single government branch with powers with as much potential for abuse as these. If we need these powers at all, we definitely need at least two branches of government involved to "check and balance" each other. This administrative subpoena business (and the elimination of congressional reports) is not smart.

[Pontiac]

I suppose you find it reasonable that the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's (subpoena is not a proper term for what is done here) existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.

How is it reasonable that a persons private transactions can be investigated with out their knowledge or a review of a judge of the appropriateness of the search warrant.

[Pontiac]

It is unreasonable because the second half of the Amendment states;

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And tyranny thrives in secrecy. When government can act under the cloak of secrecy what is to stop them from crushing dissent?